Friday, March 20, 2009

An Answer to my last Question

Apparently a few people have gotten their feathers a bit ruffled by a recent article and its follow-up from Mark Dever.

People have forgotten, as Mark Dever has stated: “That a Baptist thinks infant baptism is wrong was no news to earlier generations of paedobaptists”.

While this should not be a dividing issue in the Church, it is something that should be thought about and discussed rationally.

Unfortunately, some of those who have taken issue with Mark Dever’s stance have ran to their Confessions as defense instead of the Bible. In order to not continue any Baptist/paedobaptists flame wars (because that is NOT the point of this post), I will not be posting links to those responses.

Now, while I concede that the Bible is not absolutely clear on the correct mode of baptism, I agree more with the Baptist stance (Mark 16:16).

The interesting thing is that this touches on another post I was thinking of writing on: how does your reading of Scripture change if, instead of having βαπτίζω transliterated as baptize, you translate it into what it means… immerse?

4 comments:

Shawn said...

Eric, I was wondering, are you and your wife ex-JW's or just yourself? And you live in the North Dallas area?

Eric, the Mad Monk said...

Shawn,

Actually my wife is the ex-JW, I was never a part of the organization.

I was a non-Christian until the (being extremely frank here) lies of the WTS drove me to study the Greek text of the New Testament.

YHWH revealed His truth to me and gave me into the hands of His Son.

Like I posted at Fallen and Flawed, we live out in the Highland Lakes area in Central Texas. However, I did live Denton for several years during my college years.

Shawn said...

I know that quote from the 1972 WT and have inquired as to its exact meaning. They never claimed to be a prophet in the sense of the word that you have in mind but in the sense that they were pronouncing Jehovah's Words as contained in the Holy Bible.

Yes, there is more then one meaning to the word prophet. I chose not to use that quote because it really has no bearing as to whether or not they were inspired of God.

Eric, the Mad Monk said...

Actually, in the whole article, the WTS is comparing itself to Ezekiel:

Ezekiel was one of these men so used by God, and not only his prophecies, but also Ezekiel himself and his acts were pictorial of things to come.

The KHs my wife attended taught that the WTS is the acting voice for Jehovah in this age. How can this NOT be taken as a Deuteronomy 18:20-22 prophet.

Also, I am curious. Seeing that you have time to read my comment and respond to it here, why have you not approved my comment on your post?